<p>I have a Stanford question. Why does Stanford’s tree mascot have lips like Angelina Jolie?</p>
<p>Also, for those that saw the Kansas-Stanford game, what was going on with the cowbell guy? Was he an official part of the Stanford band?</p>
<p>@collegealum314</p>
<p>Yes, the cowbell guy was an official part of the band.</p>
<p>They have a very inclusive viewpoint on being in the band. I heard there was one guy who got in who played the finger cymbals. It is about showing your commitment and interest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who are exactly are you replying to? Who in this thread said Stanford is a better school than Harvard because they have a lower acceptance rate? </p>
<p>One thing that it may show is that the Stanford “vibe” (which is very different from that projected by the East-coast Ivies) is capturing the attention of a growing number of high-ability applicants. </p>
<p>I think Stanford’s admit rate is the lowest because many kids from the west coast who want to stay on the west coast apply to Stanford as it is considered the premier school for the west. Whereas the east coast has Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, etc. East coast applicants wanting to stay on the east coast have several schools to choose from that are considered as prestigious. The dynamics are different, just my two cents.</p>
<p>@roundup49789</p>
<p>I doubt that has very little to do with it since their admit rate has not always been so low relative to the East Coast colleges.</p>
<p>In addition, the West also does have UCB, UCLA, Caltech, USC as well so although it is arguably the premier school of the west, it isn’t as if it is the only school on the West. Just like Harvard, arguably the premier school of the East, is not the only school on the East.</p>
<p>Each year there is a competition to be the tree mascot, which I think involves making your own tree costume. Regardless, the look of the tree does change. Apparently, the creator of this costume wanted it to have those lips. Maybe she’s a girl? Admittedly, it is a really weird mascot. It is a “palo alto” tree, which fits S since the campus was once a farm. S, like Dartmouth (which has no mascot at all now), abandoned their Native-American themed mascot years ago and this was the replacement.</p>
<p>Who knows what is driving the increase in applications. It’s possible the geographic factor could be impacting it, but that is not a new thing. S was always in CA. Many students apply to all or most of the Ivies regardless of their differences and fit issues, which drives up their numbers. And the Ivies do benefit from the high population density of the NE, specifically cities like Phila., New York, and Boston. </p>
<p>The tree is a guy.
I thought the lips were a tribute to the Rolling Stones logo (without the tongue to avoid trademark issues). But I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Found an article where the lips were just as pronounced f8rom 200…so has been around for a while - haven’t looked further back.</p>
<p>That’s right, I think they mentioned his name during the tournament.</p>
<p>S says: There is no official mascot at Stanford University. The “Tree,” which is a member of the Stanford Band, is representative of El Palo Alto, the Redwood tree which is the logo of the city of Palo Alto. Since Stanford University and Palo Alto are almost inextricably intertwined in interests and location, it is a natural outgrowth of this relationship. The tree still exists and stands by the railroad bridge beside San Francisquito Creek – it is the site where early explorers first camped when settling the area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of those choices, Caltech is so STEM-centered and small it’s not likely to attract strong students who aren’t interested in or going into STEM fields and USC’s status as a respectable/elite U is less than 15 years old. </p>
<p>Back in the '90s and before…there was some merit to its reputation as “University of Spoiled Children” as folks as famous as Senator John S. McCain openly stated about his second and current wife’s alma mater. Back then, it was still a school for well-off kids who wanted big sports/party. </p>
<p>Other nicknames for USC I’ve heard from Californian relatives, neighbors, and friends throughout the '80s and '90s include University of Stupid Californians" or one I commonly heard in Chinese-American communities…“University of Stupid Chinese”. </p>
<p>USC has made great strides within the last 15 years. However, keep in mind 15 years isn’t much time for a university to build the same long-standing legacy and reputation like Stanford or the other schools named above. </p>
<p>@cobrat</p>
<p>Since the other poster mentioned MIT, I added Caltech.</p>
<p>As for USC, we aren’t talking about 15 years ago and this makes the point even more. Stanford’s admit rate dropped even as another West Coast college was rising in prominence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While understandable, MIT is larger and more well-rounded academically than Caltech. For instance, it has topflight departments in Linguistics and Political Science where one can not only do a major, but also pursue a PhD which would be considered peers of many top 5-10 PhD programs depending on subfield. </p>
<p>Seems like Caltech has an interdisciplinary PhD in Social Sciences. Not remotely the same thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ehhhh, so? We are talking about the options undergrads on the West Coast have to go to top colleges, besides Stanford. PhD programs have nothing to do with that.</p>
<p>I first would like to say all the schools are great colleges. In the general population UCB, USC and UCLA are not considered at prestigious as Princeton, Columbia, Yale, MIT etc. Statistics which back this up is the yield at each school. </p>
<p>@roundup49789</p>
<p>That is not the point.
The point is that people on the west coast have some great options instead of just Stanford if they want to stay on the west. So it is silly to say that their acceptance rate is just because people want to stay on the west.</p>
<p>Caltech is considered as prestigious as MIT.<br>
<a href=“http://www.caltech.edu/content/caltech-named-worlds-top-university-times-higher-education-global-ranking”>http://www.caltech.edu/content/caltech-named-worlds-top-university-times-higher-education-global-ranking</a></p>
<p>UCB and UCLA do well in that ranking also compared to the other schools you mentioned.</p>
<p>So it’s a competition to see who can have the lowest acceptance rate? So, the goal is to have an acceptance rate of zero? Also, to achieve this goal it is helpful to have many many applications, and encourage applications from students that you know have zero chance of being accepted. It’s all in the name of sport I suppose. </p>
<p>It is the point because more students apply to what is considered the very prestigious school. Stanford’s prestige is based on admit rate which is a function of applications received and acceptances given. The east coast has more schools on the level of Stanford than the west coast. For the student on the west coast Stanford is the “big cheese” so to speak. On the east coast the big cheese could be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, etc. All having very low acceptance rates. If the east coast only had Harvard, then Harvard would receive many more applications than it currently receives and would have a much lower acceptance rate because of its high yield.</p>
<p>Caltech received approx 5,500 applications.</p>
<p>I was giving an explanation why Stanford’s acceptance rate was lower than Harvard’s. I also stated up front that all the colleges are great. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said it was a competition, I was merely responding to the statement that some cc poster made that stated Stanford had a lower admission rate than Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So who said that? Who are you replying to? No one here said that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ehh, no. Not even close. You are missing the causality.</p>
<p>Because of their research, teaching, graduates, students, financial aid, programs, philosophy, etc, they have a level of prestige. As a result, many people apply.</p>